lloevner

My clunk is only in the lens as well, but only on the D7200. I own 2 AF/VR lenses (10-20mm AF-P, no noises) (70-300 AF-P, the subject of this post). I do not own any other digital cameras from other makers. At this point, I am satisfied that I do not have a defective lens. It is said "It's not a bug, it's a feature!"

@mike_haliwell - It appears that when VR is enabled, it is always running. My AI/AIS lenses always appear stabilised. I am very pleased with the VR and find the focusing aids to be even more valuable. I will not use the D7200 for manual focus lenses any longer. @JDMvW - Do your lenses make the sound on a Z series body? Do any of your lenses make the sound when VR disengages (parks)? My lens consistently makes the noise when VR engages and disengages (D7200), but no such sounds on the Z6.

On the Z series, I think that the VR switch on the lens also controls the body VR. When a lens with a switch is mounted, the body menu VR option is greyed out.

The Z6 does appear to keep VR on all the time. However, when one powers the camera on/off, the clunk is absent. Speculation: there is something in the firmware or camera hardware for the VR which is different in the D7200 vs the Z6. I do not have any other Nikon DSLR bodies available to me for additional testing. Perhaps those with newer bodies can provide insight. I did have the opportunity to compare it to the DX version - there is no clunk on either body.

A head scratcher - mine makes the clunk with my D7200, but not my Z6. (yes, VR is on.)

Epilogue, for those who may have the same questions that I had: I purchased the Z6 (not the II) since it was on offer at a good price (US$1400), and the 24-70/4 since the image examples (see prior posts) were so impressive. The 24-70 continues to impress. The 70-300 AF-P ($400 on sale) works really well. I updated the Z6 firmware to the latest (3.30). AI/AIS lenses - I do not own any chipped lenses. My percentage of technically good images with long lenses (fast 300 and 400) is now nearly 100% due to the focus peaking and magnified view (compared to the D7200's optical viewfinder which I have been using). (I have set one of the function buttons to toggle magnified view.) On a monopod, the VR is not clearly an advantage. It produces images which are on average very good, but disabling VR will result in the occasional image which is just a bit crisper; on those images, the very fine details are clearly a bit better than the average when pixel peeping. This confirms the difficulty of manual focusing on a DSLR. EXIF data, of course, only indicates focal length, no f stop information. Leica M lenses - the Fotasy adapter was recommended to me. It is absurdly inexpensive (I paid $10 for mine). By my measurements, it is about 0.1 mm too thin, but for me this is irrelevant since I don't have lenses which have floating elements. I have tested all the Leica branded M lenses which I own and could borrow (21mm through 90mm). I have been promised a 35/2 Summicron with the RF goggles, but have not had a chance to borrow it.I did not have access to any non-Leica M lenses. All of the tested lenses were designed for film, and work precisely as they do on film. No oddities at the edges/corners with the wide lenses. EXIF data does not contain focal length, and this is a known issue with non FTZ adapters. I think I read that this may have been corrected in the Z6 and Z7 mark II models. All in all, the Z6 meets my goal for a single light tight box on which I can use all my lenses. I debate whether I should have waited until later this year or sometime next year to purchase the Z6 II (anticipating price reductions). The adapters work well, and allow me to own only one rapidly depreciating body for 3 families of lenses (Nikon F, Nikon Z, Leica M), and more if I wanted. I am not convinced that the more expensive adapters (eg Novoflex) add any value . The 24-70/4 has its place, but is not my first choice for many purposes, due to its bulk. For those who need focal length in their EXIF data with the non Nikon adapters, check out the mark II versions of the Z6/Z7. fil

I own one DX AF/VR lens. I just purchased a 70-300 AF-P FX (f 4.5~5.6). A very nice performing lens, not even considering its recent sale price. I think I have been fortunate to receive a good example. However, whenever the VR mechanism unlocks/locks when the camera focuses/stops focusing, there is a distinct mild "clunk." The noise is not present when VR is disabled, confirming that this is the source. Focusing is extremely quiet. Image quality is very good. (My DX lens does not make the "clunk" noise.) Is this noise characteristic of this particular lens or of FX VR lenses in general (perhaps due to larger lens elements), or do I have a bad sample? Many thanks for the feedback, fil

Thank you for doing this. The 24-70 Z lens does very well in comparison to the fixed focal length options.

I have done the same with my D7200. I will focus and reframe. It seems only natural to me since my background is film, and I only own a single autofocus lens. Everything else is AI.

This is very interesting. None of the images is "worse", within the limits of focus/exposure/sun vs clouds. One may have a personal preference though. Particularly interesting to see no color fringing in the corners of the 20-24 mm images. Some allegations on the web that the BSI sensor of the Z6/Z7 is better than the sensor of the Z5 in this regard since the actual photosite is closer to the cover glass. My best guesses are: 50 mm: D = Nikon 24-70; E = Leica 50; F = Nikon 50. I will say that D and F are so very close. 35 mm: J = Nikon 24-70; K = Leica 35; L = Nikon 35; M = Voigt 35 28 mm: G = Voigt 28; H = Nikon 28; I = Nikon 24-70 20/21/24: A = Nikon 24-70; B = Voigt 21; C = Nikon 20.

@NHSN - Thank for for the offer to make some test photos. If possible, I would appreciate samples from the 21/4, 35 summicron, and 50 summicron.

@dieter: Thank you for the tip on the voigtlander adapter; I was only aware of the Novoflex. I have read various figures about the thickness of the cover glass on the Z sensors. I am not keen on having the covers changed out since they are more or less an integral part of the optical formula. On the other hand, if there was a modified one on offer at a low price, I could be tempted to experiment. @SCL - Thank you for the link. I have been Googling the M->Z threads for the past year or two, and had seen some of the comments on that forum. @JDMvW - Perhaps I am atypical, but I am lens centric; I view my "camera system" as the constellation of lenses which I already own, and whose capabilities I know how to exploit. Camera bodies are secondary. As such, I am considering whether adding a body to my existing system (of lenses) would allow me to increase my hit rate with the aid some of the Z's technical innovations (IBIS, focusing aids, etc.), while also allowing me to use the M lenses' unique optical qualities. If I can't, I don't see the value of purchasing a Z body; I get good results already with the D7200. I also miss platinum and palladium, as well as dye transfer, printing! @samuel_lipoff - Thank you very much for the personal feedback! I'd be very interested in hearing about your experience with the Megadap adapter.

With the current sale prices for the Z bodies, I am considering whether one of them would be a good host for my M lenses. I am not terribly interested in a Leica body due to their high prices and alleged reliability/repair issues. (I used Nikon F and Leica M film cameras for many years, with zero problems.) I own AI/AI-S lenses, which I have been using on a D7200, with decent results. My M lenses have not been used for a while since I do not have the time for B&W film, and the cost/logistics of 35mm transparencies is, in my opinion, ridiculous. A Z body sounds like an attractive way to have the best of both worlds - using the legacy Nikon and Leica lenses. Would you please share your recommendations/experiences (especially M lens adapters) to aid me in making a buying decision? BTW, not buying is a valid decision for me, especially if I wouldn't be able to get good results with the M lenses. Many thanks,

Hi Ed - What I may wind up doing: for wide angle M lenses - use my M4 + Velvia -> digitize processed slide with D7200/Illumitrans, then print. I have been doing this all M lenses for a number of years, with superb results. The D7200 also does a nice job with my old AI lenses, since it only uses the center of the image circle. The full frame mirrorless would only be used for the longer M lenses. The M4 rangefinder has been great ever since it was adjusted; I have not had any issues. A digital M is not under serious consideration; I continue to hear of service issues with all of them. I was hoping that a Nikon Z6/Z7 would allow me to use my M and AI lenses on a single platform, but it appears that Nikon will not work well with the wider angle M lenses. I'd like to try this out for myself, but there are no dealers in the immediate area.

Many thanks to those who posted images, esp Ed_ingold. Through back channels, I was ponted to a series of images which included a Kolari modded Sony with wide angle M lenses. Not very encouraging. Longer focal lengths (50+) looked just fine. I fear that I will not be able to properly use my wider lenses on anything other than an M body, probably a result of their secret sauce (microlenses). I love the look of the Mandler M lenses, and will have to choose between film + digitizing (D7200 body with Bowens Illumitrans) or digital M. I'll probably choose the film for my wide angles. I'll think about a mirrorless (Nikon Z) for the rest, since this will allow me to use my AI lenses, plus give me IBIS.

Hello all, thank you for the suggestions. Please keep them coming! If anyone has personal experience with Nikon Z6/Z7, I'm very interested in learning more. @sandy - I appreciate the Ricoh rec. Very interesting camera, but as you noted, crop sensor, which of course conflicts with my desire to use wide angle lenses. @ed - As you note, Leica has the advantage vs. other manufacturers due to the physics (Leica specific thin sensor covers and microlens geometry) as one gets further away from the center of the image, combined with the angle of incidence with wider angle lenses. In the back of my mind is the possibility of one of the Sony mirrorless, with the Kolari mod, but we are then starting to get into more money and what is arguably an orphan camera. The Nikon Z6/Z7 interest me since they have thinner sensor covers and reputedly are quite reliable, plus I can use my existing Nikon lenses (current digital is a D7200). Some of what I have read about Leica M/Nikon Z is promising, but I'm not too keen on buying/trying/returning cameras until I am reasonably certain that it is a viable combination. (No local camera stores carry the Z6/Z7.) @greg - My budget is somehwat flexible. I'm OK with a higher price, as long as I get more in return. As you say, digital M bodies are not inexpensive, and are really more than I'm comfortable with. I appreciate the advice to avoid the earlier digital Leicas. I really want to keep it simple and reliable. I've been spoiled by the reliability of my M3 and various Nikons I have owned over the years. My M3 rangefinder needed adjustment when I bought it (a long time ago), but it has not drifted one bit since (thank you DAG!). I'll take a look at the SL's. @SCL - thank you for the feedback re:longer length Leica lenses on full frame Nikon digital. I'd love the feature set of the Olympus, but would prefer full frame so that I can get wider angles. My current workflow is: Velvia on the M3, then using a Bowens Illumitrans and the D7200 to digitize the image. This works quite well - I've made large prints which clearly preserve the Leica look. Thank you again to all,

Thank you Sandy. I was not aware of the Ricoh. I'll definitely look into it. I should add, I'd prefer full frame, if possible, so that I can get the full use of the wider lenses. I've been living with DX Nikon, and miss the wide angles (20-24mm), a lot.

I have a few M lenses, ranging from 21 to 90mm,used with an M3. I understand that the wider angle lenses are a challenge for all bodies, including Leica's. I would like to go digital for color, but I am very reluctant to consider a digital M due to expense and service issues. I've read a number of threads here and there, with encouraging discussion of Nikon Z6/Z7 (due to the thinner sensor stack) as well as modded Sony bodies (Kolari). Can anyone share their experiences with these, digital M, or any other bodies? Thanks to all,

Too bad the focusing screen is not geared to MF.

That's an interesting suggestion. I was hoping for an AF solution for birds...

Also, the D7200 is a steal at the current price of US$700!

Well, that was interesting, informative, and tiring. I had a bit of a learning curve to contend with, since this is my first foray into digital. Testing was done as follows: VR off, tripod on, mirror lockup on, with IR release. Accuracy of focus was verified at each tested focal length/aperture. For the record, AF was spot on. Images were taken as NEF (14 bit) -> DNG -> photoshop, with default parameters. Multiple exposures were made at each setting, and the best selected to avoid issues from vibration. I could not directly demonstrate meaning decentering, no matter what I tried. The blinking (which uses vignetting as a proxy for decentering) was very hard to induce, I think this was becuase of only a small amount of vignetting on a DX body. Color fringing at vertical high contrast edges was narrower, but more intese in the left side of the frame vs the right. I would say that is due to very minor decentering (not unexpected, given the complexity of the design and low price). This was most pronounced at 500mm, f8. I also borrowed a friend's 70-300 dx vr lens. Although I can't diable vr, it too exhibited the asymmetric lateral CA. Coincidence? Some peculiarity of my camera? At 500/5.6, images were sharp in the center, but with a fair amount of lost contrast (spherical aberration?). Contrast improved with each reduction in aperture, with no further improvement by f8. To illustrate, assume a 10 pixel wide sharp line at f8. At 5.6, this would look like a definite 4 pixel line, with 3 pixels of gradual smudge on either side. However, even wide open, I could resolve 1/8 inch high contrast objects (bleck letters on white background)toward the edges of the frame, at the length of a football field, The loss of contrast, once I became aware of it, was a showstopper; I had planned to use the lens wide open. The lens is packed up and going back. Not sure what to do next. Don't want the expense of the 500pf. Take home messages for me: 1. My copy of the 200-500 is superb, if one can live with f8. I do not know if this is representative; based on the reviews. Unfortunately, the price has gone back up, so I will not be getting another copy to try. 2. The 70-300 dx vr is an incredibly nice lens for the money. I wish I had purchased the D7200 with the kit lenses now. And they say that the FX is even better? Can anyone give their personal experience? 3. Pixel peeping can be unhealthy. I will avoid it like the plague.

Thanks for the suggestions. I will give them a try this weekend, weather permitting, and report my findings.

I am a long time film user, with.a primary interest in birding. I just purchased a D7200 (just couldn't rationalize the D500), but the main piece was the 200-500/5.6 while it was on special. The lens seems to live up to its reputation in the center of the frame, but there's one thing that I just can't understand. While testing, I noted strong purple fringe at the left side of the frame associated with a high contrast vertically oriented object. Minimal LaCA is seen on the right. I do not see this effect with more "normally" oriented objects, but I assume that it still there, just hidden. Do you think that this is a lens defect? I can return/exchange through January. Many thanks for the anticipated advice.